Private vs Public healthcare

[Jon-86]

I know this topic has been talked about before since its a big thing for americans. But were not talking about america this time. Now this can apply to a number of services.

I live in Scotland and I'm in favor of the NHS or was. I've heard some really good arguments against state run health care. Don't forget the NHS used to be the best in the world. Thats an undeniable fact. But it hasn't kept with the times and because of the way its run it has fallen apart due to changes in this country.

Now the arguments are that it should mostly be private and that the law requires everyone to get health insurance and those who cant afford it get free insurance.

This is what they do in Germany, and god know Germans have an amazing ability to prosper in tough economic times. Consider that a positive stereotype! But how would you balance that because I would hate for this country to become one where doctors check your insurance before they treat you and you have to give a credit card or insurance number over the phone before an ambulance is sent out. As I'm told happens in Canada.

So I invite your input folks.

[Gorgonof]

NHS tends to benefit everyone equally, USA health care only benefits the wealthy, of course I'm biased to, my parents home schooled me and then my dad gave me notice to move out when I turned 18, colleges and the military don't like home school diplomas, I don't have anyone to help me get a loan, and my education was crap to begin with, so I'm in a tough place going from one shitty job to the next, and if I ever got ill where I needed medical treatment I would be financial devastated, but I can't afford insurance either.

I think everyone has a right to healthy and prosperous, regardless of whether you regard them welfare scum or not.

[Memorize]

At 1/11/11 12:07 PM, Gorgonof wrote:

I think everyone has a right to healthy and prosperous, regardless of whether you regard them welfare scum or not.

How can you call the US Healthcare system Private when 55% - 60% of it is Government?

Also, I hate you morons who consider a service a right. What would you do if no one wanted to be a doctor? Force them to treat people?

Btw, how did the whole "everyone has a right to a home" thing work out? oh... right... Global housing bust.

[Gorgonof]

At 1/11/11 12:19 PM, Memorize wrote: How can you call the US Healthcare system Private when 55% - 60% of it is Government?

The government is working in favor of insurance companies and inflated healthcare costs by not allowing insurance companies to compete over state borders, and by limiting the number of new doctors accepted each year. Besides that, I'd like to see a source on your statistic.

Also, I hate you morons who consider a service a right. What would you do if no one wanted to be a doctor? Force them to treat people?

Not only do you think people don't have the right to health care when their suffering, but when they're about to die as well? Holy shit you're cold, and I don't see any foreseeable shortage of doctors.

Btw, how did the whole "everyone has a right to a home" thing work out? oh... right... Global housing bust.

How is this relevant to health care?

[Jon-86]

At 1/11/11 12:07 PM, Gorgonof wrote: NHS tends to benefit everyone equally, USA health care only benefits the wealthy........
so I'm in a tough place going from one shitty job to the next, and if I ever got ill where I needed medical treatment I would be financial devastated.

Thats the balance I'm talking about to be honest. Right now theirs a shit load of middle men not only in the NHS but in other places sucking the life out of them and wasting money!

At 1/11/11 12:19 PM, Memorize wrote: Also, I hate you morons who consider a service a right. What would you do if no one wanted to be a doctor? Force them to treat people?

In the UK it is considered a right. Just like americans uphold the right to bear arms. Its just part of your society. Here we feel everyone has the right to a basic standard of living and healthcare. Human rights didn't exist at one point either but your post almost reads as if your against peoples rights.

And your comment "force them to treat people" is kinda pointless. Its a job just like any other. Some live it and make it their lifes work. Some do it for the money. What if no-one wanted to take out rubbish (trash) what would we do. Force them to collect it???

A want your opinion on what I've posted no an off topic rant.

[sharpnova]

At 1/11/11 12:07 PM, Gorgonof wrote: NHS tends to benefit everyone equally, USA health care only benefits the wealthy, of course I'm biased to, my parents home schooled me and then my dad gave me notice to move out when I turned 18, colleges and the military don't like home school diplomas, I don't have anyone to help me get a loan, and my education was crap to begin with, so I'm in a tough place going from one shitty job to the next, and if I ever got ill where I needed medical treatment I would be financial devastated, but I can't afford insurance either.

I think everyone has a right to healthy and prosperous, regardless of whether you regard them welfare scum or not.

I regard them as welfare scum because I don't feel they have a right to free healthcare at the devastating cost to the middle class.

You're telling me you couldn't get into any college due to a homeschool diploma? Nonsense. Go to a community college first then if you really want to go to college.

You're telling me your dad kicked you out with no reason? Who knows what you did to make him do that. I'm sure it was worse than any tragedy in your entire sob story post.

Earn the right to be healthy and secure. Earn it. Don't demand that other people who DID earn it give it to you for free. How can you possibly think that's fair? Are you one of those nitwits who thinks every prosperous person had their good life handed to them on a silver platter? Everyone I know who's well off came from humble or average beginnings and worked their rear off to earn something better for themselves and their kids.

They didn't do it for you. No one should be forced to support someone like you. No one. Not your parents, and not taxpayers in your country.

[Jon-86]

At 1/11/11 01:36 PM, sharpnova wrote: I regard them as welfare scum because I don't feel they have a right to free healthcare at the devastating cost to the middle class.

Absolute shite in most cases. Their are spongers. But you cant blame people for not working when their are no jobs. Its all to easy to blame the poor when the elite fuck up.

Cut their benifits they say.

Aye do that when you can give them a job! A say!

[Gorgonof]

At 1/11/11 01:36 PM, sharpnova wrote: You're telling me you couldn't get into any college due to a homeschool diploma? Nonsense. Go to a community college first then if you really want to go to college.

You're telling me your dad kicked you out with no reason? Who knows what you did to make him do that. I'm sure it was worse than any tragedy in your entire sob story post.

Ah, I shouldn't have set myself for any sort of ad hominen with personal information, my dad is only the real person I've had a problem with, I'm an atheist and I haven't expressed strict hetereosexuality ( IE: Had a girlfriend around him, agree with him when he rants about "gay rights")

But sure, my dad isn't a psychotic asshole and I'm not gay according to him.

They didn't do it for you. No one should be forced to support someone like you. No one. Not your parents, and not taxpayers in your country.

I'm not asking for free visits to the hospital, I want health care I can afford, payed by part of my income tax or government run nonprofit health insurance. And in fact I am supporting myself, it's very difficult, I work overtime every chance I get. And I know firsthand how ridiculously expensive treatment is in this country, I had to spend lolallmypaycheck and savings one weekend when a stomach ulcer finally caught up to me and I saw a doctor, just to come back to the ER later that night after an allergic reaction.

[Memorize]

At 1/11/11 01:22 PM, Gorgonof wrote:

The government is working in favor of insurance companies and inflated healthcare costs by not allowing insurance companies to compete over state borders, and by limiting the number of new doctors accepted each year. Besides that, I'd like to see a source on your statistic.

To which I respond: What the FUCK did you think would happen when you got the Government involved?

Not only do you think people don't have the right to health care when their suffering, but when they're about to die as well? Holy shit you're cold, and I don't see any foreseeable shortage of doctors.

Oh, you mean like how you people demanded free housing for, which has now gone bust with those same poor individuals being tossed out of those homes?

I do love how you sidestepped the housing issue though.

Maybe we should insurance for Grocery shopping and Government Medicare should cover food as well!

Here's a tip: It isn't a right if it would force someone else to do something against their will or involved stealing from them.

How is this relevant to health care?

Why do you think Prescription drugs are so costly?

Because now that the Government provides them for "free", the drug companies can now jack up the price knowing the Government will pick up the tab.

Demonstrate to me how this would "eventually work out".

[Gorgonof]

At 1/11/11 02:33 PM, Memorize wrote: To which I respond: What the FUCK did you think would happen when you got the Government involved?

I didn't get the government involved, obviously the government is being lobbied to take actions that favor those who charge so much.

Oh, you mean like how you people demanded free housing for, which has now gone bust with those same poor individuals being tossed out of those homes?

Having health care =/= having a house. People can rent if they can't afford their own house, there isn't any substitute for medical treatment.

Maybe we should insurance for Grocery shopping and Government Medicare should cover food as well!

Here's a tip: It isn't a right if it would force someone else to do something against their will or involved stealing from them.

Where are people being forced to become doctors and treat people, seriously?

And I like how you think all government intervention is evil, how come other countries spend about halfof what we do and provide health care for everybody, not just 85%(figure 6)

It's been done before, we can cut costs and expand coverage if we pass reforms that benefit the people, not the wealthy.

[sharpnova]

At 1/11/11 01:59 PM, Gorgonof wrote: I haven't expressed strict hetereosexuality

It would take a lot more than free healthcare to solve your issues.

And if you want to be an argumentative, idealistic little twit to your father, then don't be surprised that he wants nothing to do with you.

Atheists like you make atheists like me look no better than theists like him.

[Jon-86]

At 1/11/11 02:33 PM, Memorize wrote: Here's a tip: It isn't a right if it would force someone else to do something against their will or involved stealing from them.

Thats kind of a decent point. Its not really weather or not you should be forced to pay for something because the government is taxing your income and you pay tax again through VAT so they are already stealing from you!

Remember the government has no money, they are elected representatives who spend your money! America could cut its military budget by 20% and have the most kick ass healthcare in the world for everyone probably! And you would still be able to invade and occupy places.

But anyway thats off topic. Back to your point. State run healthcare has a monopoly. And thats where it fails I think. In the UK their is no accountability. Their are like I said layers of middle management, who are useless and waste money.

But because the NHS has a monopoly on the system poor performance isn't effected by the consequence of "going out of business" Although cost-effectiveness shouldn't dictate the service as it would ruin it further.

Thats why I'm now on the fence and am left thinking about, wondering about what should happen.

Because now that the Government provides them for "free", the drug companies can now jack up the price knowing the Government will pick up the tab.

Your wrong here because government pick and choose what drugs to buy and those drugs have to be cost effective. So if a company jacks up the price then they wont get a government contract. Its the reason the UK has less than adequate / not the best cancer drugs in circulation right now

[SadisticMonkey]

ATTENTION MORONS (Yes, you!)

America does not have a free market in healthcare. They have government granted/caused oligopolies on health insurance, an artificially restricted supply of medical professionals, absolutely retarded tort laws (leading to massively inflated costs) and expansive government healthcare programs.

[Gorgonof]

At 1/11/11 08:41 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: ATTENTION MORONS (Yes, you!)

America does not have a free market in healthcare.

Question: Who said it was?

[Jon-86]

And I clearly wrote at the beginning that were not talking about America anyway, so go figure...

:-/

[Gorgonof]

At 1/11/11 09:49 PM, Jon-86 wrote: And I clearly wrote at the beginning that were not talking about America anyway, so go figure...

-/

Ah, sorry, don't think there are to many people from Europe on here, I think Germany has private and public health insurance competing against each other, which results in pretty reasonable premiums.

Do you have any links so I could read what's happening in Scotland?

[Jon-86]

The NHS is UK wide so covers Scotland. And they basically have a monopoly on the whole thing. But its not only about healthcare that's just a good example of a government run monopoly that's failing because its being run bad, theirs no accountability because the government control it and its falling apart.

So I'm looking for peoples opinions on government monopolies like that and how they can be bettered. Healthcare is good because their a balance that needs to be found and a catch 22 in their as well that we need to think about.

Profits shouldn't dictate service and treatment but without running it like a business its failing as all this government bureaucracy and red tape is fucking it up.

Same goes for most public sector workers who are considered "front line" like Teachers, Fire brigade, Police, Doctors / Nurses etc etc

[SmilezRoyale]

At 1/11/11 02:48 PM, Gorgonof wrote:

At 1/11/11 02:33 PM, Memorize wrote: To which I respond: What the FUCK did you think would happen when you got the Government involved?

I didn't get the government involved, obviously the government is being lobbied to take actions that favor those who charge so much.

You hit the nail on the head. And this is precisely why the idea of State run medicine is such a menace. If Government officials have already been lobbied to craft "Regulations" of the HC industry in favor of unscrupulous insurance companies, what makes you so confident that any new legislation increasing state power over health.

**you** certainly do not get to read the bill and vote for yourself whether you like what the government has done or not. and likely neither does the congressman who you 'supposedly' opted to make these decisions on your behalf. The bills are too large and the reading period is too short, Congressman take their cues from their staff members and lobbyists.

In a nuttshell, why are you running to the lions for safety?

[Entice]

At 1/11/11 01:36 PM, sharpnova wrote: Earn the right to be healthy and secure. Earn it. Don't demand that other people who DID earn it give it to you for free. How can you possibly think that's fair? Are you one of those nitwits who thinks every prosperous person had their good life handed to them on a silver platter? Everyone I know who's well off came from humble or average beginnings and worked their rear off to earn something better for themselves and their kids.

Are you one of those nitwits who thinks that every poor person had a chance to become prosperous and only became poor out of their own laziness?

I've know people that are trying and will most likely fail, and people that have tried and failed. I've known people that grew up poor, had parents that discouraged education, and a host of other personal problems. Of course, some people have become poor just out of their own laziness, but is that an excuse to not help the disadvantaged?

There are people in this country who could give up over half of their money and still be billionaires. Why is it so unreasonable to take 25 percent or even 50 percent of their income once they become this rich? Why is it unreasonable to ask people to pay a small tax if it gives another person health care? You realize how important health care is, don't you? Health care is a human right in the same way that access to clean food and water is a human right. Its ridiculous to live in a country with such an enormous amount of wealth and not give the poor health care.

[MultiCanimefan]

You know what, bgraybr? Then the poor should be fighting each other to see who deserves the wealth. Poor Man's Deathmatch, I say!

[Snake-Arsenic]

I like public healthcare, but I still think people who can afford private healthcare should not be using a public healthcare service, the reason being is the waiting lists for public healthcare can get pretty long even for basic treatments if people are on it just for the sake of it being free.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 1/12/11 12:20 AM, bgraybr wrote:

At 1/11/11 01:36 PM, sharpnova wrote: Earn the right to be healthy and secure. Earn it. Don't demand that other people who DID earn it give it to you for free. How can you possibly think that's fair? Are you one of those nitwits who thinks every prosperous person had their good life handed to them on a silver platter? Everyone I know who's well off came from humble or average beginnings and worked their rear off to earn something better for themselves and their kids.

Are you one of those nitwits who thinks that every poor person had a chance to become prosperous and only became poor out of their own laziness?

Firstly... Pretend you live in a neighborhood and you decide to hire someone to rob the wealthiest member in the community at which point the robbed proceeds will be distributed to your favored groups. You hire a criminal organization and give them access to the large majority of the firearms in the neighborhood. Do you think it is more likely that after the robbery has taken place, the hired group will 1. Follow through with your plan 2. Take the plunder and proceed to spend it on what *they* rather than you want, and maybe use their newfound firepower to push and threaten you and your associates as well

Secondly... If Healthcare is such an important good, why not nationalize food production as well? Food and water are more essential to human life than healthcare. A complete absence of Healthcare would substantially diminish human life expectancy in the long run, but a complete destruction of the food supply would end the human population in no more than 1 month.

Of course the reasons are not logical, economic, or theoretical, but Ad-Hoc and "Historical" Nationalization of the food supply has been tried in the past and with similar consequences.

But while one can dismiss the problem of rationing of healthcare and the 'waiting times' / outright denial of healthcare as a result of price controls, health care can in a sense be rationed with less serious consequences since citizens can adapt their lifestyle.

But few are so bold as to say that shortages and rationing of foodstuffs [and subsequent starvation] is an acceptable price to pay for food being "free".

[Jon-86]

At 1/12/11 06:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Secondly... If Healthcare is such an important good, why not nationalize food production as well? Food and water are more essential to human life than healthcare. A complete absence of Healthcare would substantially diminish human life expectancy in the long run, but a complete destruction of the food supply would end the human population in no more than 1 month.

You just answered your own question here really. The way the world runs now would need to be derastically changed before food was nationalised. But isn't water already nationalised or do you have provate water companies over there?

I can tell you you have to pay for water in England but in scotland it is nationalised. The public own the water company and its free, all we pay is a little extra to our council tax for maintenance. Where as the english have to pay that plus a bit more.

BUT

But few are so bold as to say that shortages and rationing of foodstuffs [and subsequent starvation] is an acceptable price to pay for food being "free".

I wouldn't go as far as saying free however if food companies were not ran for the profit of its share holders that profit could be reinvested into food making prices much cheaper than they are OR prices only get a little lower and the quality of food is increased. Because cheap food tends to be crap!

Still this is all veering way off topic, its crashed through the ditch in the road, and is half way in the lake. Anyone willing to get us back on track?

[KemCab]

At 1/11/11 01:22 PM, Gorgonof wrote: Not only do you think people don't have the right to health care when their suffering, but when they're about to die as well?

Healthcare still isn't a right, assuming that rights actually exist. For example, if you were on a deserted island, you could exercise your "right" to freedom of speech because you could yell all you want and nobody would stop you. Suppose you needed heart surgery or a liver transplant; where would be your precious right be then? Would the island be denying you the right to healthcare? Or maybe the ocean?

HELP, HELP, THE OCEAN IS OPPRESSING ME

If you ever find the good fortune to discover a time machine, go back to ancient Greece or something and ask the philosophers there whether or not everyone has a fundamental right to healthcare (or even to other basic needs like food and shelter) but don't be surprised if they all just lol at you.

Holy shit you're cold, and I don't see any foreseeable shortage of doctors.

All your petty moralizing still doesn't change the fact that healthcare isn't a right. In fact, you just highlighted exactly why it can never be one: what if there aren't enough doctors? How can you uphold this so-called "right" if they can't treat everyone? This idea is dependent upon the assumption that there exists adequate medical infrastructure to treat everybody -- which, of course, is stupid. All you can ever hope for is that healthcare is somehow made available to everyone.

Calling it a right is just an excuse to have a sense of entitlement.

[Gorgonof]

At 1/14/11 02:06 AM, KemCab wrote: Healthcare still isn't a right, assuming that rights actually exist. For example, if you were on a deserted island, you could exercise your "right" to freedom of speech because you could yell all you want and nobody would stop you. Suppose you needed heart surgery or a liver transplant; where would be your precious right be then? Would the island be denying you the right to healthcare? Or maybe the ocean?

I'd say you're correct in the sense that rights are not inherent, rather, a society decides what people are entitled to. And as far as I know in every industrialized country health care is considered a right, in the USA if you're dying the hospitals have to treat you, but if you couldn't afford insurance in the first place then you're probably screwed financially for the rest of your life.

HELP, HELP, THE OCEAN IS OPPRESSING ME

lol

If you ever find the good fortune to discover a time machine, go back to ancient Greece or something and ask the philosophers there whether or not everyone has a fundamental right to healthcare (or even to other basic needs like food and shelter) but don't be surprised if they all just lol at you.

I've stated my opinion on what rights I think people should have but I don't believe that people have fundamental rights to anything.

All your petty moralizing still doesn't change the fact that healthcare isn't a right. In fact, you just highlighted exactly why it can never be one: what if there aren't enough doctors? How can you uphold this so-called "right" if they can't treat everyone? This idea is dependent upon the assumption that there exists adequate medical infrastructure to treat everybody -- which, of course, is stupid. All you can ever hope for is that healthcare is somehow made available to everyone.

There are enough doctors here, in fact recently the American Medical Association predicted a surplus of doctors and limited the number of new ones allowed. And see above, health care is already available to everyone, the exception would be if there was a disaster and doctors couldn't treat everyone in time.

[Gorgonof]

At 1/11/11 10:04 PM, Jon-86 wrote: So I'm looking for peoples opinions on government monopolies like that and how they can be bettered. Healthcare is good because their a balance that needs to be found and a catch 22 in their as well that we need to think about.

If a government agency is deliberately inefficient then allowing private companies to compete against it should help them to run more smoothly again, although the market needs to be free, laws that only promote a small handful of businesses do not work.

Same goes for most public sector workers who are considered "front line" like Teachers, Fire brigade, Police, Doctors / Nurses etc etc

Having private schools could be a good idea, but obviously allowing the private sector to compete doesn't magically fix everything, in the USA there's plenty of private and public schools, but many public schools are currently failing.

And privatizing police forces and firefighters would be a terrible idea, law enforcement and fire control should to be directly accountable to the government so that officers and firemen work for the people, not a business owner.

[gumOnShoe]

At 1/11/11 02:33 PM, Memorize wrote: Graph

In regards to your graph. Over 50% of that is private money. Medicaid generally refers to people who can't afford to be on their own: the elderly; chip is for kids who couldn't possibly live in a world without a little bit of socialism as they rely on others until they are of age; and your remaining 13% is unexplained as "other"

The graph just demonstrates that right now we've put the most needy all in one place because they can't be taken care of by a private system.

[UnknownOne]

Arguments FOR public health care:

1. Trading good/stable health for money doesn't seem right, does it? Is it ethical? Sure, they may
have earned the job, but should they demand so much money just for you to be fixed up?

2. The private market really is brutal when it comes to health care (not how they treat patients).
The private hospitals don't give you much of a choice: give us the money, or leave.

3. You wouldn't be paying that much more taxes.

4. It's a question about your fellow American. Even though you may have absolutely nothing in
common and relationship, don't you feel your conscience telling you that letting others suffer
(when really desperate) is wrong, and that you should at least do something to help? Or are you a
cold-blooded, selfish person who doesn't even know what conscience is? Sure, you may have
aspirations and your goals of life, but would you mind helping people who really need help?

5. If you said that you don't care about random strangers getting hurt, you really are implying all
victims of accidents. If you don't care about them, not even pity them for their loss, don't care for
those truly desperate, you really are committing political and social suicide. No one (or few) would
think of doing it or or want to do it.

6. Stop the "Socialism/Communism = sh*t, evil, diabolical" things. Socialism is a "combination" of
capitalism (which money flows between private companies, the state earns mostly thru taxes)
communism (no one owns more than another, not good economical idea rly) which ends up
with that the state controls the private market to some extent, but the state still has power do
serve the people, perhaps even better than the private market would. Yes, the health care reform
may be socialistic (communistic, if you're some American fool), but what do you see: the good
side, or the bad side? Or even better, do you see both? Which side do you consider to be the
most considerable, the one with good outcomes that easily overcomes the other side with the
negative outcomes?

Also, how about a counting for each post on people for private and public health care?

Public: 1
Private: --

[UnknownOne]

Also, about "your fellow American", just add that with a person living in the same country

LOL didn't read 1st post

[KemCab]

At 1/14/11 04:49 AM, Gorgonof wrote: I'd say you're correct in the sense that rights are not inherent, rather, a society decides what people are entitled to.

Then by that logic, healthcare is a possible entitlement, not a right. Actually, now that I think about it, nobody would stopping you from getting treatment. It's just that you couldn't pay for it.

And as far as I know in every industrialized country health care is considered a right, in the USA if you're dying the hospitals have to treat you, but if you couldn't afford insurance in the first place then you're probably screwed financially for the rest of your life.

Yeah, this happens sometimes.

I've stated my opinion on what rights I think people should have but I don't believe that people have fundamental rights to anything.

Well, if we're talking within the context of modern society, I would still call that so-called "right" an entitlement. When you say a "right to healthcare", you are talking about making a service (e.g. medical treatment) available to everybody. This is semantic confusion. Example: the Second Amendment states that citizens have a right to bear arms, but this does not mean that the government is compelled to deliver an AR-15 to your doorstep.

There are enough doctors here, in fact recently the American Medical Association predicted a surplus of doctors and limited the number of new ones allowed. And see above, health care is already available to everyone, the exception would be if there was a disaster and doctors couldn't treat everyone in time.

I wasn't saying that there aren't enough doctors. I was saying this demonstrates that medical treatment is a finite resource, and since there are always a finite number of doctors, hospitals, etc., there's no way that healthcare could be a "right" in the first place. And access to healthcare is dependent upon more than just the number of doctors.